So, rather than having to speculate on what is actually in this secretly and undemocratically negotiated compromise between a major corporation and government, let's have a look at the draft. Secrets and democracy don't mix.

Apparently, there is some concern about the use of "secretly and undemocratically" in my description of the course of events that led to the special session and, ultimately, draft bill. I'm not referring to the draft bill itself as secret (and my wording surely caused this portion of the misunderstanding), but the process whereby consent for this arrangement apparently was earned before the public was even notified that this deal was a possibility. And then, this deal being announced in an emergency fashion has led to a rushed process where we aren't even discussing what it means to have a corporation dictate tax policy to a legislature. This is what I mean by secret and undemocratic.

Comments

They could easily just make a contract with elected officials responsible for maintaining the laws in the future by bribing them with campaign donations as consideration.

Oh wait they already do that. I guess this is just a hedge in case bribery doesn't work.

This does answer the age old question though -- since it states that the contracts may not be modified by later law -- omnipotent beings can make a decision that makes them no longer omnipotent.

"In consideration for making qualifying investments" is the promise in section 4.(e). The actual consideration is provided for as "factors to be considered" (4.(f)) with no specific requirements. It would be up to bureaucrats to determine what the consideration (qualifying investment) would have to be. I presume then that they have to promise something so the consideration critique doesn't seem to hold.

I'm more concerned that this is a bill of attainder, declaring everybody who isn't a major campaign donor guilty of not donating in excess and thus being penalized by being burdened by unfair taxation through unfair tax exemption.

Why is this needed, though, they would just route their profits through a tax shelter. Why isn't how much they pay in taxes before and after given as consideration, too?

Nike makes an investement in Oregon it has to compete with everybody else on a level playing field. If they want to pick up and leave later, they can and then lease out their offices to a responsible company. It's not like their investment would be all lost. This would be insane to sign. If our tax structure made it so only responsible community members relocated (or stayed in) to Oregon, I think we'd all be better off.

How come BlueOregon is blocking comments again a week after you supposedly were having problems that were supposed to be sorted out? I've been trying to comment here for 20 minutes. Are you guys trying to block dissent of Kitzhaber for selling out Oregon to the highest bidder?

I just found out that I was late to the party. Sarah Mirk had this on blogtown the day before: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2012/12/11/read-the-governors-proposed-special-nike-tax-deal-plan?cb=3440cdee76e26a082af37e9c1f224270

To Republicans in Congress and in state capitals across the country: It's time to refuse the NRA's support and their money. And donations received in the past should be donated to organizations supporting the survivors of gun violence.